IBM DPTA-305020 ATA66 IDE, 20 GB, NTFS

[Guest]

reference:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001206/p4-03.html

Hard Drive for Windows 2000 Tests:
IBM DPTA-305020 ATA66 IDE, 20 GB, NTFS

I'm concerned about the fairness of disk latency in these benchmark tests. Varying the cache specification, and thereby causing variations in overall latency per each system, could have skewed conclusions about which processor performed best in the benchmarks. The best I can determine this data was tabulated like the biblical money changers (ref: Holy Bible: New King James Version: Matthew 21:12-13)

What was the disk cache specification for all these CPU benchmark tests?

Did all computer systems tested for CPU benchmarks have identical hard drive set ups, including disk cache?

 

[lhgpoobaa]

well one would think that the tester would keep all the specs the same,
just swap in and out the different secondary drives your benchmarking
same os, drivers, mem, chache.
the only thing i see one has to watch for is drives with differeng cache sizes
but most are 2mb nowerdays


"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have created"~Darth Vader, Star wars

 

[Guest]

The phrase 'well one would think that the tester would keep all the specs the same' sounds good in theory, but how about the actual implementation? The disk cache was not specified in the tabulation so theoretically it could have varied per system setup while the results could have the illusion of using fair comparison methodology during implementation.


I think important parameters should be reflected in test results to support conclusions. What do you think NASCAR officials would do if they discovered restrictor plates had been removed from the winning car?

 

[Guest]

Good points.. This site was certainly never famous for it's hard disk reviews.

***check the jumpers 1st then check em again***